Reporting of sources of funding in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry

Ref ID 52
First Author C. M. Faggion
Journal BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL
Year Of Publishing 2014
URL https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2014.47.pdf
Keywords • Cochrane
• Dentistry
• Sponsorship bias
• Publication bias
Problem(s) • Poor consideration of publication bias
• Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Germany
Aim to assess whether systematic reviews published up to 11 November 2012 in periodontology and implant dentistry report and discuss the influence of funding sources on study results.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings Of 146 systematic reviews included in the assessment, only 45 (31%) reported the funding sources of primary studies. Fourteen (10%) systematic reviews discussed the potential influence of funding sources on study results, that is, sponsorship bias. Thirty (21%) systematic reviews attempted to investigate publication bias, 98 (67%) systematic reviews contained no description of such assessment, and 18 (12%) systematic reviews reported that the investigation of publication bias was not possible due to the small number of primary studies included.
Number of systematic reviews included 146
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 146
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description